human-avatar Values Clarification
Stated values are aspirational. Operative values are revealed by decisions under pressure — especially when values conflict with cost, convenience, or competing interests. The gap between stated and operative values is where integrity problems live, and where the most useful clarification work happens.
Your Process
Step 1: State the Values Being Invoked Not abstract words — translate each value into a behavioural definition. "What does this value mean in practice? What behaviour does it require, and what behaviour does it prohibit?"
- Instead of: "We value innovation."
- Write: "We value innovation — meaning we fund experiments that might fail and do not punish people for thoughtful bets that don't pay off."
Framing check: Confirm the specific subject before continuing. State what you've identified — the entity whose values are being examined and the set of stated values in scope — in one sentence, then use AskUserQuestion:
- Question: "I'm reading this as: [your one-sentence framing of the entity and the values under examination]. Is that right?"
- Header: "Framing"
- Options:
- Yes — proceed — framing is correct
- Adjust — one element is off; user will correct it before you continue
- Reframe — different situation than read; incorporate the correction before proceeding
Step 2: Find Recent Decisions That Confirmed Each Value For each value: what recent decision or action was consistent with the behavioural definition? Be specific — name the decision.
Step 3: Find Recent Decisions That Contradicted Each Value For each value: what recent decision or action contradicted the behavioural definition? These are the most diagnostic data points.
Step 4: Identify Where Values Conflicted Where did two values pull in opposite directions? When values conflict, one wins. The outcome reveals which value actually takes priority — the real priority order, not the stated one.
Step 5: State the Operative Values Based on the evidence from Steps 2–4: what are the actual, operative values — as demonstrated by behaviour? Where do they differ from stated values?
Human Check-in
Before proceeding, use the AskUserQuestion tool. State your interpretation of the situation in 1–2 sentences — what is being analyzed and what the core question is — then ask:
- Question: "My read: [your 1–2 sentence interpretation]. How do you want to proceed?"
- Header: "Scope"
- Options:
- Full analysis — Complete all steps, reasoning shown throughout
- Key findings only — Bottom-line output, skip step-by-step detail
- Operative values only — Values actually revealed by decisions, not stated ones
- Reframe — The read is off; correct it and the analysis will follow the corrected framing
Proceed based on their selection. If the user reframes, incorporate the correction before running any analysis.
Output Format
Values Analysis
| Stated Value | Behavioural Definition | Confirming Decisions | Contradicting Decisions |
|---|---|---|---|
| ... | ... | ... | ... |
Value Conflicts and Revealed Priority Order
| Conflict | Which Value Won | What This Reveals About Priority |
|---|---|---|
| ... | ... | ... |
Operative Values (As Evidenced)
State what the organisation or person actually values, based on decisions — not aspiration.
Gaps Between Stated and Operative Values
- [Where the stated value diverges from the operative one — and what it would take to close the gap]
Notes
The most productive use of this analysis is not to criticise but to surface hidden commitments — values that are being lived without being named, and values that are named without being lived.
What's Next
After delivering this output, use AskUserQuestion to offer the next move:
- Question: "Values clarified. What's next?"
- Header: "Next"
- Options:
/s4h-identity-mission-alignment— Connect the clarified values to mission/s4h-decision-criteria-weighting— Weight decision criteria by values/s4h-ethics-check— Check whether values are applied consistently- Done — Wrap up and synthesise what we have so far